Also available in:

Introduction

Ok, so this is a personal pet peeve of mine, but I have trouble with figures of speech.

Specifically, it bothers me when people use a figure of speech that makes no sense. Like "head over heels".
You know what? You are head over heels most of the time. Look at your head. Look at your heels. Get it?

In fact, the oracle of knowledge says that originally it was "heels over head" and somehow it turned
nonsensical over time.

Well, one specific branch of figures of speech that gets my attention are paradoxes. Or rather clichéd
paradoxes. For example, when someone is in a situation where A depends on B and viceversa, he may say
it's like "the chicken and the egg".

The long version is of course, the allegedly difficult question "What was first, the egg or the chicken?".

Well, I don't know the age of that question, but I know when it got answered: about 100 years ago.

The answer

Now, if we stipulate the following:

Evolution theory is correct in general

Chickens are a product of evolution

The question really is "what kind of thing existed first, chickens or eggs?"

If, instead, the question is "what kind of thing existed first, chickens or chicken eggs", it is a bit more
difficult.

If the definition of "chicken egg" is "an egg that contains a chicken", then the answer is eggs. By definition of
egg, a chicken comes from a chicken egg. The chicken that mutated and crossed the speciation threshold
(ie: became a chicken) was born out of a chicken egg, that was not laid by a chicken.

If the definition of "chicken egg" is "an egg laid by a chicken", then the answer is chickens. The primordial
chicken was born of an egg, but not a chicken egg, and proceeded to lay the first chicken egg.

In short, the answer to the question is: it depends.

If you don't agree, define both terms, write the question properly, and ask. I know the answer.